I suspect a fraudulent entry on a recent POTD contest. The photo was not the winner but placed very high in the voting. I submitted a message through the CAM form. Should I post the fraudulent entry here also, or would that be considered outing?

I enter the contests with my own images from time to time, and I'd like to think everyone was playing fair. I recognized the photo from having seen it within the last year or so, and a little bit of research using Google images let me to the original on an adult pay site.

Okay Moderator, I need to find out why my last two 18+ entries never appeared in the contest. Four days ago I entered a b&w version of this shot:
http://www.modelmayhem.com/portfolio/pic/29862114Hardly a controversial pose, but it vanished anyway.

PDMedia Photography wrote: Okay Moderator, I need to find out why my last two 18+ entries never appeared in the contest. Four days ago I entered a b&w version of this shot:
http://www.modelmayhem.com/portfolio/pic/29862114Hardly a controversial pose, but it vanished anyway.

The winning entry in the men's POTD 18+ on 12th and 13th are very slightly different from each other and so, I guess, they comply with the rules. Might I suggest that at some point the 15 day and winning re-entry rules need looking at?

I would also like a rule clarification. If a previous entry is re-edited and re-submitted (non winner within 15 days or winner at any time) is this allowed?

Mark Leighton wrote: The winning entry in the men's POTD 18+ on 12th and 13th are very slightly different from each other and so, I guess, they comply with the rules. Might I suggest that at some point the 15 day and winning re-entry rules need looking at?

I would also like a rule clarification. If a previous entry is re-edited and re-submitted (non winner within 15 days or winner at any time) is this allowed?

Mark Leighton wrote: The winning entry in the men's POTD 18+ on 12th and 13th are very slightly different from each other and so, I guess, they comply with the rules. Might I suggest that at some point the 15 day and winning re-entry rules need looking at?

You may not resubmit a given image to the POTD 18+ for at least 15 days.
The cited images are different images.
What would you suggest I rewrite the rule to say?

Mark Leighton wrote: I would also like a rule clarification. If a previous entry is re-edited and re-submitted (non winner within 15 days or winner at any time) is this allowed

Editing a previous entry and resubmitting within 15 days is technically a violation of the rules.
Was the 'edit' the removal of a speck of dust from the negative or was it the transformation of the model to a lizard creature on some distant planet.
It all depends on the edit done

K E E L I N G wrote: I'm sure this isn't your doing, I'm guessing you have no control over the techies ability to not give a shit about this issue, sorry to rant at you JoJo. I'll shut up now.

You know I have many broad spectrum super powers but my intergalactic telepathic powers seem to be down a quart this month (caused by all the BS in the election) so I have had to resort to phoning IB or sending them emails.
Emails sent when I saw the problem.
I have already repeatedly rattled the techs' cages and given them extra raw flesh.
The 'fix' is done and is in the next Curveball tournament I mean, site update

Well the present rule is made a mockery of by those two entries so I would suggest either the rule says something like images substantively the same (giving you powers of discretion as you have in other areas of the rules) or that the rule is simply done away with leaving the power to reward or not such images with the voter.

Mark Leighton wrote: Well the present rule is made a mockery of by those two entries so I would suggest either the rule says something like images substantively the same (giving you powers of discretion as you have in other areas of the rules) or that the rule is simply done away with leaving the power to reward or not such images with the voter.

So where do I start and where do I stop.
So should the rule be:
the same shoot?
the same model?
the same photographer?
the same planet?

Mmmmm I would say the same planet for starters... or appearing to be the same planet...

Seriously, if it is too cumbersome to create such a guideline, there seems little point in having the rule at all - those two images are so similar to each other they may as well have been the same. I can scarcely imagine someone saying "well I really like A but not so keen on B" !

Mark Leighton wrote: Mmmmm I would say the same planet for starters... or appearing to be the same planet...

Seriously, if it is too cumbersome to create such a guideline, there seems little point in having the rule at all - those two images are so similar to each other they may as well have been the same. I can scarcely imagine someone saying "well I really like A but not so keen on B" !

But aside from A and B both being members of the alphabet, they are different letters of the alphabet.
A and H are close... so are B, P and R... how about O and Q?

If an image is too close to another I disqualify... but where do I draw the line?

Seems clear that an image that is too close to another should be disqualified ... Why someone would enter them running consecutively is beyond me anyway but too close, is too close in any language. They can virtually be placed on top of each other like a tracing to create one image. That should be the criteria and not whether its the same shoot, same model or whatever.

As in other areas of the rules, there would have to be a judgement as to if it appeared too similar or not.

I can understand, though, that this could be tiresome as it opens the gates to more dissatisfied customers if they don't agree with the judgement.

The reason for the rule in the first place is what? I guess to make the contests more interesting to participants - it would be a bit boring to plough through the same images day after day. However, those two images are almost the same and they both won - so the voting members don't seem to concerned with that.

I don't vote every day. I didn't notice the two very similar pics, and I can't remember if I voted for either of them.

I don't know how we police this. I don't even know if we should.

We all know that a slight pose change, crop, lighting change, whatever, can make or break a shot. But the changes between the two images weren't material changes, and neither shot was weaker because of the changes. Anyway, the pic probably had a large number of yardage votes, and that bit hadn't changed between the shots.

It's easy to say that similar images should be banned, but, like the focussing on genitals rule, and the no erections rule, it would be very difficult to enforce. Where do you draw the line? What constitutes change?

I do find it interesting that two similar images could win on consecutive days. I'd like to know the motives of the person who did it. It can't have been a cheap trick to win the competition again, he wins too often for that to be a reason.

Kent Art Photography wrote: I don't vote every day. I didn't notice the two very similar pics, and I can't remember if I voted for either of them.

I don't know how we police this. I don't even know if we should.

We all know that a slight pose change, crop, lighting change, whatever, can make or break a shot. But the changes between the two images weren't material changes, and neither shot was weaker because of the changes. Anyway, the pic probably had a large number of yardage votes, and that bit hadn't changed between the shots.

It's easy to say that similar images should be banned, but, like the focussing on genitals rule, and the no erections rule, it would be very difficult to enforce. Where do you draw the line? What constitutes change?

I do find it interesting that two similar images could win on consecutive days. I'd like to know the motives of the person who did it. It can't have been a cheap trick to win the competition again, he wins too often for that to be a reason.

I am not saying that similar images should be banned per se - I am saying the current rule makes no sense really as an image could be the same except for the slightest difference and thus comply with the rules - so it may as well be the same. So if it is not possible to police a "slight difference" rule, you may as well do away with this rule altogether.

I agree, the motives of the person that entered would be interesting to know.

I am not saying that similar images should be banned per se - I am saying the current rule makes no sense really as an image could be the same except for the slightest difference and thus comply with the rules - so it may as well be the same. So if it is not possible to police a "slight difference" rule, you may as well do away with this rule altogether.

I agree, the motives of the person that entered would be interesting to know.

Perhaps doing away with the rule altogether would be easiest, we could rely on the law of deminishing returns to sort things out.

My dear child. You didn't think this was an un-rigged contest, did you?

Kent Art Photography wrote: I do find it interesting that two similar images could win on consecutive days. I'd like to know the motives of the person who did it. It can't have been a cheap trick to win the competition again, he wins too often for that to be a reason.

Kent Art Photography wrote: I don't vote every day. I didn't notice the two very similar pics, and I can't remember if I voted for either of them.

I don't know how we police this. I don't even know if we should.

We all know that a slight pose change, crop, lighting change, whatever, can make or break a shot. But the changes between the two images weren't material changes, and neither shot was weaker because of the changes. Anyway, the pic probably had a large number of yardage votes, and that bit hadn't changed between the shots.

It's easy to say that similar images should be banned, but, like the focussing on genitals rule, and the no erections rule, it would be very difficult to enforce. Where do you draw the line? What constitutes change?

I do find it interesting that two similar images could win on consecutive days. I'd like to know the motives of the person who did it. It can't have been a cheap trick to win the competition again, he wins too often for that to be a reason.

Speaking of the genitals rule, I believe it states that the penis must be fully flaccid. Generally speaking this rule is not enforced judging from the entries. Why enforce some ruled and ignore others? JoJo, I know your job is a thankless one, but really now, os semi erect the same as flaccid? If so why not fully erect? We could be a porn site (lol). some say we already are...

I was recently messaged by Kent Art Photography informing me of all the controversy about my entering two very similar pictures two days in a row. Kent was the only person in this thread who had the decency and the balls to come to the source and ask me if I would explain what happened. Here is my reply to him, and to anyone else who is interested in knowing what happened.

Hi Ray!
First of all, I want to sincerely thank you for bringing all of this to my attention. i had no idea it caused such a controversy! Looking back through the chain, I am astounded that this caused so much attention, and I"m glad you asked me to explain.
I must start off with the differentiation of technically breaking a rule, and breaking the spirit of the rule. While I did not technically break any rules, the spirit of the rule was broken, and in my book the two are pretty much the same. My bad. As you will see below, I didn't intend to break any rules.
I don't think anybody was more suprised than me to see that the second, very, very similar shot had been added. Until both the model and myself scrutinized it closely the morning it was in the contest, did we discover it was, in fact, a different photo. No matter, it was for all intents and purposes the same photo. At first, in fact, when I thought it was the same picture, there was no way for me to retract it once it's in the contest. I was especially surprised when it won, with even a few more votes than the first day the similar picture was entered. I guess people really did like the photo! But one win would have been sufficient.
I think the confusion came because now we enter pictures two days ahead instead of just one. My memory not being what I'd like it to be, I entered the second picture, not realizing I had entered it for the previous day. IT WAS DONE TOTALY BY ACCIDENT. Like one of the commenters on the chain said, I have no reason to enter the same picture two days in a row. I win my share of 1st place wins without having to enter the same photos. I have hundreds of photos I could enter, so why on earth would I want to enter the same one two days in a row? Think about it, People. Use some common sense here.
I think what amazes me the most, is all the bruhah it's caused! Some people take this sooooo seriously! It's a fricking daily photo contest after all, not an entry for the Nobel Prize. I take the contest seriously, love entering and voting, viewing the work of my peers, and I respect the contest's rules. I enter for fun and as a challenge to myself to put my work out there and see how it is accepted by my peers. The photos are not going to solve world hunger, nor will it solve the peace problem in the Middle East, nor will it solve the many challenges facing our nation at this time. It's amusing to me how some people get so riled up about what was an honest mistake. I keep that in perspective. You, Ray, are the only person who had the decency to come to the source and ask me how it happened. I applaud you for that!
So I don't think there's any small can of worms to be opened by either of us. It seems as though a large can of worms has been opened by others here.
I do offer to MM a couple of ideas that would help prevent this:

1) go back to the old system of posting for the following day, not two days in advance. I never understood the reason for this.
2) allow us to see what is posted for the following contest. (This would have prevented my similar entry the second day)
3) allow the person entering the photo to be able to delete his photo from the contest for any reason. (Had this been possible, I would have deleted mine the second day).
4) And while I am offering suggestions, I also suggest that MM split the POTD contest in to men's and women's categories, just as the 18+ contest is split.

I only apologize for a mistake I made that was done intentionally, and this was not intentional so I am not offering an apology. But I do say "please excuse me" for my error. It was not intentional, and I do hope the second place finisher gets the credit for first place which he/she deserves.

Thanks again, Ray, for giving me the opportunity to explain what honestly happened. I appreciate that, and will post this also in the thread.

Tom, I think I was the one that opened this subject on this forum. The reason I did not contact you to ask you what you were doing is that my post and question related to the purpose and the effectiveness of the 15 day rule. Personally, I was hoping you had posted it on purpose to show that the rule is not "fit for purpose". I think there have been numerous other occasions in which at least extremely similar photos have been posted but the didn't win, so it was not so noticeable. There was not meant to be any implied criticism of you in my posts.

You are right that it did not help find a solution to world hunger - I hope to get round to that tomorrow.

Tom Silk Photography wrote: 1) go back to the old system of posting for the following day, not two days in advance. I never understood the reason for this.
2) allow us to see what is posted for the following contest. (This would have prevented my similar entry the second day)
3) allow the person entering the photo to be able to delete his photo from the contest for any reason. (Had this been possible, I would have deleted mine the second day).
4) And while I am offering suggestions, I also suggest that MM split the POTD contest in to men's and women's categories, just as the 18+ contest is split.

1 - I was speaking with IB of this again last night - we are talking.
2 - use http://www.sendu.me.uk/modelmayhem/15_day/3 - want it removed - CAM it and I will remove it
4 - not going to happen - which gender contest do we put butterflies and trees into.

Tom Silk Photography wrote: I only apologize for a mistake I made that was done (edit... UN)intentionally, and this was not intentional so I am not offering an apology. But I do say "please excuse me" for my error. It was not intentional, and I do hope the second place finisher gets the credit for first place which he/she deserves.

Thanks again, Ray, for giving me the opportunity to explain what honestly happened. I appreciate that, and will post this also in the thread.

Tom Silk (Tom Silk Photography #441584).
=

If you would like to "resign" one of the two wins please send me a CAM and I will take care of it.

Tom, I also support your request that the potd be split if the 18+ contest remains split. Male and female models can either be judged along side each other or they can't - what difference to the clothes make?

The butterflies and trees, much like the couples in the 18+ contests, could be entered into one or the other but not both.

Speaking of the genitals rule, I believe it states that the penis must be fully flaccid. Generally speaking this rule is not enforced judging from the entries. Why enforce some ruled and ignore others? JoJo, I know your job is a thankless one, but really now, os semi erect the same as flaccid? If so why not fully erect? We could be a porn site (lol). some say we already are...

I must make a confession here. I suspect many entrants do as I do and sometimes try to push the envelope. I do from time to time and sometimes I get DQ's legitimately or more often not legitimately for those with extra large members. It is fun to see if I can get away with something. Hee hee. And I take my chances. I must say from experience the moderators are more than fair, very often giving borderline images the benefit of the doubt.

I often wonder why some images pass and others get a big DQ but that is life... I treat contests as a minor diversion, fun but not of any real importance. Just my humble ipinion.

zoomring photo wrote: It's pretty self-evident what I meant. Vote early and often, as they say in Chicago.

It helps to have friends. Helps to control multiple accounts. The way the contest is set up, there is no effective way to control vote stacking, whatever efforts are made.

I gave up a long time ago thinking there was any chance of winning without a network, and I use he contest ony as a showase.

I do NOT vote stack but I very often compliment winners of the contest and as time goea on I get to know them and their work. If i see someone's image I like I am inclined to vote for them. It is just human nature. Not collusion. Sometimes you can recognize a ceratin style. Anyway, a lot of stuff is not intentional but a result of networking.

I do NOT vote stack but I very often compliment winners of the contest and as time goea on I get to know them and their work. If i see someone's image I like I am inclined to vote for them. It is just human nature. Not collusion. Sometimes you can recognize a ceratin style. Anyway, a lot of stuff is not intentional but a result of networking.

Same here. Generally, the winners are deserving winners, and anyone who suggests that there is widespread vote rigging may be having problems with sour grapes.